Bombay High Court
WP/15665/2024 of JOTIBA ANTU POTE Vs MARUTI DHONDIBA SHETKE AND ORS on 16 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15665 OF 2024 Jotiba Antu Pote … Petitioner Vs. Maruti Dhondiba Shetke And Ors … Respondents …………. Mr. Manoj Patil i/b Akash M. Murudkar for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
27-WP-15665-2024=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15665 OF 2024 Jotiba Antu Pote … Petitioner Vs. Maruti Dhondiba Shetke And Ors … Respondents …………. Mr. Manoj Patil i/b Akash M. Murudkar for the Petitioner …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard.
2. The petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed below Exh.17 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2012 rejecting application for amendment in written statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would not change nature of the proceedings and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner is entitled to get fair opportunity to put- forth his case before the Court. The impugned order is stated to be arbitrary and perverse. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of
27-WP-15665-2024=.doc
4. The petitioner is defendant in R.C.S. No. 13 of 2010 for declaration and injunction. The plea which is sought to be elaborated by way of proposed amendment regarding execution of Will by Sunanda in favour of the petitioner was already disclosed in the trial Court. After full fledged trial, the suit was dismissed on 22.07.2011.
5. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred R.C.A. No.53 of 2012. The appeal was pending for substantial period. The Application Exh.17 seeking amendment to written statement is filed on 12.01.2022. The petitioner proposed to add pleadings and introduce counter-claim in the appellate Court, which is impermissible. The amendment is not necessitated because of the subsequent events or disclosure of the facts. The appellate Court has taken reasonable and plausible view. It is not permissible to entertain counter-claim for the first time in the appellate Court. The test of due diligence has not been satisfied by the petitioner. No case is made out to cause any interference.
6. The Writ Petition is rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of